MAD MAD MAD

There are only four things that I find it hard to calmly debate and argue about, without becoming increasingly annoyed: how to use literally correctly and why it's important; gun control in America; Feminism and specifically whether a woman is ever asking to be raped (I mean, literally by definition you cannot ask to be raped); and whether we should abolish Trident. Indeed, whenever I take those political quizzes that proclaim to be able to tell me which political party I am closest to, my support for abolishing Trident somewhat skews the results. Yes, that's right. I would abolish Trident. And I don't think there is a single good argument (aside from the fact it seems to monumentally annoy the SNP) for keeping the expensive waste of money. Frankly, I'm not too fussed about the cost actually. I think the billions could be better spent. Maybe we could give those junior doctors a bit more money or stop charging people £9000 a year for the privilege of a university education. Or actually, here is an idea. Let's give all those people who will apparently now lose their jobs a huge payout. As if Trident's main purpose was to provide people with employment. But I suppose that's neither here nor there though of course I do believe it's an utter waste of money. And no, I don't think, if we abolish it, we will usher in a new era of calm and peace (Sorry Jezza, maybe whilst you're talking to Daesh about  whether they would mind terribly if they stopped killing homosexuals and raping women, you could ask them not to nuke us) where the US and Iran become Facebook friends and instead of launching nuclear war against each other, decide to hit the poke button and have a poke war that eventually Iran wins after President Donald Trump is caught in a dilemma over whether to comb his hair or invade Portugal and completely forgets to log into his Facebook account. I can even forgive the fact it appears to have been named after a brand of chewing gum.

No, my main issue with Trident is that it is not a deterrent. It is not a deterrent for a number of reasons. And if a nuclear deterrent isn't a deterrent then it serves no purpose. We may as well keep the warheads filled with all those plastics bags we are now saving because of the 5p charge for all the good it would do. 

Reason Trident is not a deterrent number one: 

Mutually Assured Destruction is an outdated idea that sounds like a perfectly good idea to those we are apparently trying to deter. In other words, it would not and does not deter countries like Iran or North Korea or terrorist groups and I think a nuclear deterrent is highly pointless if it only works as a potential nuclear retaliation. Mainly because they are fairly certain we would never use it (see below) but also because they are not bound by the incredibly volatile politics of MAD.

Besides, if you look at the nuclear powers or close-to-nuclear-powers in the world that might think a nuclear holocaust is a good idea, the majority hate America more than they hate us anyway, so I think we might be safe. Despite expanding over vast swathes of the globe and making life pretty miserable for most of the world's population in our not-so-distant past, we are remarkably still preferred to the USA. Anyway, apparently we don't have to worry about Iran anymore (unless you're Israeli...then you have to be very worried, but who cares about Israel?), North Korea are hardly a threat (I'm more concerned about the very real possibility that Donald Trump may be allowed into the UK after it transpires that only the Home Secretary can ban him and that three hour commons debate was entirely pointless. The havoc it would cause) and even if Russia and China were, Trident would be utterly useless and we'd need the Americans anyway. We may as well turn up to a nuclear war against the Russians with a glow stick and a McDonalds happy meal toy. 

Reason Trident is not a deterrent number two: 

We would not use it. Sure that's an assertion, but so is the claim that we would use it. I struggle to believe any British Prime Minister could sanction the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people who pose no threat to us in a single strike. Besides, couldn't we just invade Iraq again if we wanted to cause murder and chaos on such an unimaginable scale? I think it might even be *cheaper* than renewing Trident. The serious point there is that *even if* we could bring ourselves to sanction the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, we could do that in so many other ways. I hear barrel bombs are fairly effective, eh Mr Assad? But seriously. I wouldn't use it. I don't think anyone could do it.

In any event, we always assert our moral superiority over our enemies. We are not fooling anyone into thinking we would strike with a nuclear bomb, trust me. And aside from anything else, does anyone actually believe we would use it? I do not think so. It, therefore, does not work as a deterrent. It's not stopping anyone.

Given we would never use it, what is the point in actually having it? If you support Trident, you support using it in response to a nuclear strike. Ask yourself what good that would do. 

Reason Trident is not a deterrent number three: 

Our biggest threat comes not from Iran (unless you're Israel. Then Iran is your biggest threat, but who cares. You're only Jewi...Israeli) or North Korea or even the French. In fact, they might even all agree nuclear Holocaust is a terrible idea, (relevant, of course, only if they were our biggest threats) and therefore abide by MAD. In which case, good thing the Americans are on our side and look like having a trigger happy bumbling fool in the Oval Office come January next year. If anything is a deterrent, it's Donald Trump with the nuclear codes. Although, he probably thinks they're his numbers for this week's powerball...But no, they aren't our biggest threat. Or even a threat (unless you're Isra...you get the point). No, our biggest threat is terrorism. It's a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of Daesh, the bastards. Or Al Qaeda, also bastards. Or any set of suicidal medieval maniacs with no fixed state territory to strike back against. All bastards. Trust me, Daesh are not deterred by the prospect of us striking Syria or Iraq. Who exactly are we going to condemn to death? Syrians? Iraqis? The Spanish? Or have we developed precision nuclear weapons that can identify a Daesh terrorist and explode a tiny mushroom cloud on his/her (I'm an equal opportunities terrorist accuser) head, ensuring we both make our point and eliminate the threat? Our biggest threat comes from an enemy that doesn't necessarily even have nuclear weapons or the capacity to launch them, don't care about a retaliation even if they did and have no clear or defined territory to strike back against in any event. Seems Trident qua nuclear deterrent isn't quite working out for us.  

Reason Trident is not a deterrent number four: 

I've alluded to this above. Trident is fairly pathetic. Not only do only four out of five dentists even think Trident is good for your oral health, our so-called independent nuclear deterrent relies on the US for some actual muscle. This begs the question why we don't just rely on the US anyway, we seem to when it comes to deciding whether to invade other countries and virtually every other foreign policy decision, so why not when we apparently want to use a particularly devastating weapon? 

Can we not just murder our civilians more conventionally? Apparently Aldi Jaffa Cakes taste basically exactly the same as the real thing. I don't see why we can't apply the same logic when it comes to murdering innocent civilians in a retaliatory strike that would never happen. Maybe Lidl do a range of really cheap, really powerful bombs like the ones we are currently using to destroy Daesh? Who knows. Sure as the hell that would freeze over before we dropped a nuclear bomb on Syria because Daesh attacked Warrington, we do not need Trident. If it is not a deterrent, which - given we would not use it and given we could not use it effectively even if we wanted to against our biggest threats - it is not, then it is about as useful as these potential alternatives to Trident: 

• Employing Wayne Rooney to negotiate with any entity who looks like they might strike 
• Teaching my (dead) pet goldfish Krav Maga as our first line of defence 
• Banning Donald Trump from entering the UK to prevent the radicalisation of youngsters so outraged by him being a buffoon (I mean what were MPs thinking. Do they honestly believe anyone takes them seriously anymore after they dedicated three hours to debating whether we need to protect the sensibilities of an increasingly pathetic and easily offended set of students and others so morally outraged by anyone who dares not be a disabled transgender homosexual ethnic minority, so much so that apparently rape is absolutely bloody okay if it is carried out by refugees and we need to have safe spaces absolutely everywhere?)
• Sending Piers Morgan on a world tour to piss off everyone by name dropping every other sentence and then exiling him to an abandoned island in the Atlantic where everyone would decide to launch their entire nuclear arsenal (somewhat ironic, given his love of a good Arsenal performance) against him, thus preventing them from doing so against us

In fact, I have a radical solution. Let's pretend to renew Trident. We can have a huge ceremony, Cameron can cut the red tape in a massive political statement against regulations in an attempt to win over his party. Political leaders can all fall over themselves to assert the historic importance of the event, reference the Cold War needlessly and inaccurately and tell us how vital it is that we can strike at the heart of Andorra should they ever threaten to win a game of football and cease to be the only team more dull and predictable than England. Everyone can have an extra day off, whip out the bunting, organise street parties and generally have a merry old time akin to the Royal Wedding but without the kiss on the balcony at the end. Just don't tell Corbabes, he might get drunk and tell Daesh or Assad. Nightmare. Plus he might explode if he thinks we are renewing Trident, which I quite fancy watching. All an elaborate double bluff that keeps everyone happy. Our enemies all still believe that we have this apparently effective deterrent and therefore would not dare trying to find out otherwise because, you know, they are suitably deterred. Unless we think they will strike regardless of whether they believe we have a nuclear deterrent, in which case it isn't a deterrent (hang on, I'm fairly sure I've heard that argument somewhere...) and we can all argue about the merits of blowing up Baghdad or Tehran or Rome from the rubble of our destroyed homes. Someone could start a petition and we could watch MPs debate it for three hours before all deciding unanimously to ban Donald Trump. 

So come on. Let's stop pretending that Trident serves us any good and go back to arguing about something useful like the disaster that Bake Off leaving BBC is. Or I don't know. The football. I hear United are doing badly at the moment. Ferguson retires and we end up wth Daesh rampaging through Syria and Iraq, the potential for the special relationship to be between Donald Trump and Boris Johnson (I'm not sure what happens if they were to ever meet), Jezza Corbs in charge of the Labour Party and an especially cold winter. I'm not saying there's a link, but you do the maths.

This post has been updated 10 times, including most recently on the 28/09/17. Please note that the football analogy at the end was current at the time of initial writing. 

Chelsea 2 - 4 Bibi

Netanyahu's victory last night was, to put it mildly, somewhat unexpected. If members of his camp pay attention to English football, they may have suggested Bradford's victory against Chelsea was slightly more likely so as to ground their election chances. However, unlike that Bradford victory, I am much more isolated when it comes to being delighted with the outcome that I attempted to have an impact on. I flew to Israel to exercise my rights as an Israeli citizen and voted - proudly might I add - for the only man I wanted to see leading my country. It seems the majority of friends I have on Facebook and people I follow in twitter are somewhat downhearted by the Israeli electorate's decision.

My decision to vote for Bibi was an easy one. He is the only man I trust to speak for Israelis. He is the only man I trust with Israel's security. He is the only man I trust to stand up for Israelis in the face of a world that is increasingly trying to delegitimise Israelis and Israel. The West cannot control Netanyahu and that infuriates them. If nothing else, that is worth voting for. I don't want to be led by a man that is scared and weak. There is this view that Israel needs a more docile leader. One that will pander to the whims of the USA and Europeans as if they have our best interests at heart and know what is best. One that views the peace process as the most important single issue facing Israel as if somehow it is the West who can choose what that issue is. The criticism of Bibi highlights this. We are told to object to his re-election because it somehow means that peace is now less likely. Ignoring the fact that peace will, unfortunately, never be as simple as who is in charge, that charge assumes that everyone in Israel should be voting as if that were the most important issue that they face. It is not, nor does anyone in the West have the right to dictate Israelis that it should be.

The most important issue for me was Israeli security. In a world where the threat from Iran is downplayed and commonly ignored, it is no surprise that people outside Israel cannot understand voting for Netanyahu when it seems being tough on security is all he brings to the table. Believe me when I tell you that I do not care what you think the threat posed by Iran is. We've done that before. We've done the trusting other people to fight our battles for us before. Never again. It has only been 70 years since the Jews emerged from the Holocaust after years of inaction from Western powers who did not believe and chose to ignore what was going on. It may have been Hitler's SS who constructed the gas chambers and threw the Jews into the crematoria, but it was the willful ignorance of the West in the face of unspeakable evil that meant they almost succeeded. Forgive me for caring not one iota whether you think this genocidal threat from Iran is a real one. The time has gone when Jews are powerless and silent in the face of a genocidal enemy that is bent on Jewish destruction. And Bibi is the only man I trust to speak for me in the fact of a genocidal enemy that is bent on Jewish destruction. Something tells me people would prefer it if Israel were quiet, if the Jews were quiet, just like we have been throughout history.

Netanyahu is not everyone's cup of tea. I accept that. But you'll find the reasons who despise him often turn out to be the very reasons I am proud he is my Prime Minister and speaks for me.

Israel-Iran

I mentioned here how I feel that some sort of military strike in the Middle East is not a matter of if but when and who. I'd like to change my tact and go for it is only a matter of when Israel can convince the USA to ignore an Israeli strike - the USA are almost certainly not going to support/condone one. Israel has long feared Iran's nuclear programme for justifiable reasons that I shan't go into and is becoming increasingly worried by her perception that the international community is not taking the necessary steps.

It is easy to justify this position:

1. Israel fully believes Iran is developing a nuclear weapon with the aim of destroying Israel.

This seems uncontroversial in that, even if it is not true, Israel do believe that it is. Furthermore, it seems as though one can easily defend the latter part of the statement seeing as Iranian officials have not hidden this view from their speeches. The former. Well, debate that all you want, Iran isn't doing the best job of convincing me otherwise!

2. Israel will go to whatever lengths it deems necessary to prevent (1) from occurring.

Again, recent history seems to make this also relatively uncontroversial. Israel has little to no concern about how it is perceived on the international community (with good reason - those who hate Israel are unlikely to stop and Israel's position is not strengthened by having support of anyone other than the USA who will remain supportive) and this only further points towards a potential strike.

3. The USA has similar fears to Israel.

This is the most important premise. While Israel cares not what the rest of the world thinks, she realises how crucial US support is. While the USA, unless Iran literally goes on state TV confirming it has a nuclear bomb, will never (publicly) condone an Israeli military strike, it is more likely that Israel could convince them to ignore one. This is easily the most controversial premise and any Israeli strike will possibly hinge upon convincing the USA to not stop them but then again, should Israeli fears escalate any further, USA opinion will also become irrelevant.

4. Countries such as Saudi Arabia could become allies by virtue of a common enemy.

Saudi Arabia is not a fan of Iran. Whilst it is not exactly Israel's best friend, it may be partial to allowing the use of its airspace (something that could be necessary for Israeli jets to make it to Iranian nuclear facilities), again probably in "ignorance", as a result of the shared distrust of Iran.

There is some way to go before Israel is ready to strike Iran. It obviously needs to ensure any strike works  but the most crucial factor here is the USA. Without the USA I am convinced Israel would have put into motion plans to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. However, I remain unconvinced that Israel can be convinced that diplomatic, political and economic pressure can have any effect and will stick my neck out and predict some sort of strike against Iran by the end of 2012.